A person is qualified to be elected as the president of Kenya if that person is qualified to be elected as a member of Parliament. The word "qualified" here is misleading. What it should say is that a person is eligible to be elected as president if that person is eligible to be elected as an MP. When we think of qualifications, we almost always think of academic and professional credentials and professional or work-related experience.
I say all this to revise my previous positions on who is qualified and who isn't qualified to be president of Kenya. This is a job unlike any other in leadership and there is no blueprint for who will be a good president and who will not. Regardless of what boosters and naysayers will say, Kenyan presidents have not been all bad or all good; they have done the job on the basis of their experience, knowledge and the circumstances of the day. There is no check-list that we can apply to say that if they had these qualifications, then they would have done a better job than the job they eventually did.
So there is no way to determine whether Judge Maraga, Senator Sifuna or any of the other ambitious politicians will make a good or bad president. We can only hope that they will be good presidents. However, based on what they have done, and how they have behaved, and how they have comported themselves, in the offices they have occupied (or continue to occupy), we can make informed decisions about whether or not to cast a ballot in their favour if they are ever included in the presidential ballot at the next general election.
Judge Maraga, to the best of my knowledge, had a largely blameless tenure as a judge, as the second President of the Supreme Court and the 14th Chief Justice of Kenya. Senator Sifuna, despite being elected to the largely ineffectual Senate of Kenya, has done a good job of being senator and only the wickedly uncharitable think he has been bad at the job. Also, as an official of the ODM Party, he ran an efficient political party machinery and if it wasn't for the succession fiasco after the death of his party leader, he seemed set to serve as secretary-general until at least the general election. On those grounds alone, they are eminently qualified. However, nothing they have done in the previous jobs is any sort of guarantee that they will be good presidents or any sort of prediction that they will be bad presidents.
Presidential candidates can do much to build confidence in their candidacies. They can surround themselves with competent men and women. They can build party and political infrastructure to communicate their political visions and ideas. They can respond to political events with a view to solidifying their political powers. They can avoid scandals or, when scandals inevitable find them, take decisive action that paints them in a positive light. They can eschew tribal mathematics and promote inclusivity and nationhood. There are dozens upon dozens of decisions and choices they can make to demonstrate the kind of political leaders they are and if they do a good enough job of it, the voters may choose them over their rivals.
But as Kenya has found out, since at least the Kibaki presidential election, campaign talk is cheap. The speed with which Kibaki's politics became a byword for tribalism and corruption is sometimes shocking to see in retrospect. His presidential campaign engendered great confidence in the Opposition. He was surrounded by stalwarts of the Second Liberation, despite one or two very bad applies (Mr. John Michuki readily comes to mind). No one thought that his Cabinet would descend so swiftly into Kanu-style tribalism and corruption (A minister saying "go slow" over the Anglo-Leasing Scandals remains jarring even today). This would culminate in the worst political violence in a decade, leaving hundreds dead and tens of thousands displaced from their homes. How he governed as president could not be deciphered from his credentials but could, perhaps, have been predictable from his political history, especially his political history between 1988 and 1992.
So even as we are bombarded by billions of clickable AI slop about the virtues of the 2027 candidates, we should maintain a healthy scepticism about the men and women selling their political agendas to us. Not everything they promise will be done. Not every accusation levelled against them is true. We should, instead, reflect on what our true values and principles, as individual voters, actually are. If we are content with sharp practices and unethical conduct, then it doesn't matter whom we elect in 2027. But if we still believe in the values and principles that were instilled in us when we were children - honesty, hard work, diligence and perseverance - then we should make radically honest choices in 2027, even if it means that tribal satraps and their coteries end up behind bars.